Books G'd tells you not to read

A few years ago I was reading the Book of Jubilees when this idiot walked up to me and tried to pull the book out of my hands. I pulled back and I said, I beg your pardon, where do you get off trying to steal my book? She said, well, young lady, you are not supposed to be reading that book. That book is not part of the bible.

I said, you are a liar. Jubilees, Jasher, Enoch, Thomas, Judas and other so-called obscure books were part of the bible before the Council of Nicea made the final decision of what books are to be incorporated in the book of confusion and from now on, before you try to force your beliefs, ignorance and stupidity to other people make sure you have your game plan together. BTW, where does it specifically say in the bible that I cannot read Jubilees?

No answer. Lots of blinking.

She started to back away and said I will pray for you. I told her to pray for herself, her prayers and her kind of help is not needed.

Let me first say that you should have the right to read whatever you want, wherever you want. The woman you talked to was obviously suffering from extreme religious delusion.

However, your reply was still nonsense, and I have to point that out:

"Jubilees, Jasher, Enoch, Thomas, Judas and other so-called obscure books were part of the bible before the Council of Nicea made the final decision of what books are to be incorporated in the book of confusion"

First of all, the Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the formation of the Bible Canon. Nothing at all. The Council of Nicaea dealt with the Arian heresy, a quibble with regards to Trinity (namely whether the Son was made of the same substance as the Father, or whether he "proceeded from the Father"). No decisions on the Biblical canon were made at Nicaea; it wasn't even discussed, despite the many myths to the contrary.

The Biblical canon had been debated on for many centuries before Nicaea and would be debated for many centuries thereafter (up until its official canonization after the Middle Ages). However, on most books, a consensus already existed as soon as the Late Second Century CE. The Muratorian canon, for instance, dates to around that time but already accept 23 out of 27 books in the current New Testament as canonical. There was still debate after that point, but it was mostly centered around specific books (notably the Shepherd of Hermas).

And the Old Testament had obviously been canonized long before that (the very late First Century CE).

And second, books like Jubilees, Enoch and Jasher were never in any of the canons, either New or Old Testament. To say that they were part of "the Bible" does not make sense (since the Bible isn't a book anyway, it's a canonized collection of books). They are examples of Jewish apocalyptic literature (midrash), but were never in any actual canon. The same goes for pseudo-epigrapha like Thomas and Judas: these were never part of a New Testament canon since the early churches apparently worked out that these were later works quite fast (Judas in particular is clearly gnostic and a much later work).

I'm all for educating Christians on the history of their Bible with a couple of facts, but you do have to make sure those facts are correct...

I got the same reaction one time while was donating plasma, I was sitting in the chair with a gigantic needle in my arm, reading the Necronomicon, and some older woman comes and tells me I shouldnt read that around her, it was making her uncomfortable. I pretty much did the same thing, and politely asked her to mind her own business, and assured her demons would not come flying out of my book at any time.